The Anatomy of Arminianism, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
That Arminius doth willingly darken the words of the Apoſtle, which are cleare and expreſſe.
ARminius with a carefull ſubtilty, but with an vnhappy ſucceſſe, hath written a Treatiſe vponupon the ninth Chapter to the Romanes; for hee doth torment the Apoſtle, and doth, as it were with wracks, draw from him againſt his will, what things he thinks may make for the patronage of his errour of Election for faith fore-ſeene.
I. He faines that the Apoſtles minde is to teach, that they onelyonly of the Iewes were to be reckoned the ſonnes of Abraham, who letting paſſe iuſtification by the law, doe follow after righteouſneſſe and faith; and the purpoſe, according to Election, hee denyeth to be the decree of the election of ſeuerall men, but the generall and condition all decree of ſauing all, who were to beleeue: By which decree Arminius will hauehave all men to be elected conditionally, which ſurely is no election, ſeeing election is not, but of ſeueral men, who are choſen out of the multitude, others being reiected.
II. I confeſſe indeede, that the doctrine of election by free grace, doth make the way to the doctrine of righteouſneſſe, by faith; yet all this diſpute of Saint Paul concerning election, which reacheth from the ſixt verſe to the thirteenth, doth not deale of iuſtification by faith, neither would the Apoſtle proue in this place, that man is iuſtified by faith, or that God doth elect thoſe which apprehend Chriſt by faith: But by the doctrine of election, doth frame to himſelf an entrance, to the treatiſe of iuſtification by faith, which afterwards he addes. Hee would here proue this one thing, that man is not truely the ſonne of the promiſe by the workes of the law, but by the election of free grace, and by the mercy of God; for it is manifeſt, that here workes are not oppoſed to faith, but to election, and to God calling. So Verſe the 11. he doth not ſay, not by workes, but by faith; but he ſaith, not by workes, but by him that calleth. So Verſe 16. when he had ſaid, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; hee doth not adde, but of him that beleeueth: What then? but of God that ſheweth mercy.
III. For when it is ſpoken of the cauſe, why, of two that are equally conceiued in ſinne (ſuch as were Eſau and Iacob,) God ſhould preferre the one afore the other, the onelyonly mercy of God, and the election by grace, is to be conſidered, and not faith, which is not the cauſe, but the effect of our election, neither doth it goe before election, but followeth it. So Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.25. ſaith, that he obtained mercy from God to be faithfull, and not becauſe he was after to be ſo. Wherefore Saint Paul in all this ſpeech wherein hee ſpeaks of the cauſe of the difference which God makes betweene two that were by nature alike, makes no mention of faith: But this Treatiſe being finiſhed, he doth deſcend, verſe 30. to the righteouſneſſe of faith, as to the fruit which doth follow election.
IV. But Arminius for the ſafegard of his cauſe, doth change the words of Saint Paul, and doth thruſt in ſomething of his owne: Pag. 27.For in the place of that which Saint Paul ſaith, not of workes, but of him that calleth, he doth ſubſtitute theſe his words, feigned by himſelfe; not of worke, but of faith, whereby God calling ſhould be obeyed: when notwithſtanding in all that diſputation which dealeth concerning election, there is no mention made of faith, neither doth the leaſt ſteppe thereof appeare.
V. It is meruailous, how much Arminius doth abuſe the examples of Iſaac and Iſhmael, and alſo of Iacob and Eſau: He doth contend, that they are here propounded, not as examples, but as types of them who followed after righteouſneſſe by workes, not by faith. Certainely there muſt be ſome agreement betweene the type, and the thing ſignified by the type. But who euer heard it ſaid, that Iſhmael would hauehave beene iuſtified by the workes of the Law, and not by faith? ſeeing at that time the law was not giuen, neither were theſe differences of iuſtification by the law, and by faith knowne; neither is it credible, that Iſhmael euer thought of or regarded theſe things: Therefore Arminius doth as much as if Nimrod ſhould be made a type of the Phariſaicall righteouſneſſe. Can the night be a type of the light? or can Eſau, whom the Apoſtle, Heb. 12.16. calleth prophane, and therefore alſo a deſpiſer of the Law, be a type of them, who being ſet on fire with the zeale of the Law, would be iuſtified by their workes? But it is worth the labour to here, why he would hauehave Eſau be a type of the ſonnes of the fleſh, and of them which aff…ct right…ouſneſſe by workes. Becauſe (ſaith he) he was firſt borne. O acutely ſpoken! He ſhould hauehave ſaid, becauſe he was red, or becauſe he was a hunter: I am aſhamed to refute theſe things; and yet in theſe figments and forgeries, the good man doth place the chiefe ſafegard of his doctrine of election, for faith fore-ſeene.
VI. Then alſo ſee how licentiouſly he mookes the Apoſtle: For when he layeth downe Iſhmael and Eſau, not as examples of re…ection, by the ſecret counſe…l of God, but as a type, hauing no agreement with the thing ſignified; he doth ſo vſe theſe names, as Logi…ians vſe Socrates, or Lawyers Titius and Maeuius, for any other man.
VII. But if we exactly weigh, what it is to hauehave hated man, being yet in the wombe, before hee hath done good or euill; we ſhall eaſily ſee, that Eſau is not onelyonly laid downe h…re as a type, but alſo as an example, to whom indeede theſe things agreed, although he were not vſed for a type: For Malachy, from whence theſe words are taken, doth not lay downe Eſau as a type, but as an example.
But how that which is ſaid, that God hated Eſau, being yet in the wombe, before he had committed any cuill, may be drawne to Arminius his purpoſe, and belong to the type of thoſe who will be iuſtified by faith, hee hath ſeene, ſurely I doe not ſee.
VIII. Paul addeth, What ſhall we ſay then? is there vnrighteouſneſſe with God? The ſenſe is plaine, and depending on thoſe things that went before▪ He had laid downe two twins of like condition and nature, neither better then the other, whereof yet God loues the one, and hates the other, and had brought the meere will of God, who hath mercy on whom he will, to be the cauſe of this difference, and not the fore-ſeeing of any vertue in the one. Hence is bred an obiection: whether God be vniuſt, who giueth vnlike things to them that are alike; and why he hath not mercy on both? What ſaith Arminius here? Why, hee takes theſe things, as if Paul demanded whether there is iniuſtice with God, who excludes thoſe from the couenant, who would be iuſtified by the Law, which he himſelfe made, and who would hauehave them that beleeue in Chriſt, to be iuſtified. This is a bould coniecture, whereof there is no ſtep nor mention in that which went before. But if it be lawfull for any one to mingle and adde to the Scripture ſo many things out of his owne wit, there is nothing ſo abſurd or impious, which may not be proued out of the Scripture. What? that there is no color nor reaſon for this here? for what ſhew is there here of iniuſtice in God? or who is ſo mad that he will expoſtulare with God, becauſe he will iuſtifie by faith in Chriſt, and obſolue them that are guilty of the breach of the law? Truely whoſoener doth maruaile or demand, why it ſeemes good to God to ſaue ſinners by fa…th in Chriſt, doth not require iuſtice in God, but doth peere into the ſecrets of Gods wiſdome. And if this had beene the Apoſtles minde, which Arminius doth faine to him, it had beene eaſie to anſwere, that God is not therefore vniuſt, who doth ſaue them that beleeue, and doth ſupply a better righteouſnes, to them who cannot be iuſtified by the Law, of the breach whereof they are guilty; or in place of the couenant of the law, which by ſinne is made voide, doth ſet another, by which man might be ſaued. Saint Paul anſwers no ſuch thing, but doth bring in God himſelfe, anſwering thus; I will hauehave mercy on whom I will hauehave mercy, and I will hauehave compaſsion on whom I will hauehave compaſsion: which words, doe not ſpeake of iuſtification by faith, but of the free election of God, whereby of two men alike conceiued in ſinne, and alike guilty, one is preferred before the other: Saint Paul doth not ſay, that becauſe the law is violated therefore there is neede of mercy; but he doth bring the cauſe of this difference betweene thoſe that are equall by nature; I will hauehave mercy on whom I will hauehave mercy: According to Arminius, hee ſhould hauehave ſaid, I will hauehave mercy by what meanes I will & I will make ſuch a couenant as ſhall pleaſe my ſelfe. For he will hauehave God not to ſpeake of the election of ſeuerall men, but of the manner, which it pleaſeth God to chooſe to exerciſe his mercy: As if he had ſaid, I will hauehave mercy as I will; and not, I will hauehave mercy, cuius volo, on whom I will: Surely this word Cuius, of whom, doth put this queſtion to flight, and doth make dull the weake wit of Arminius: for this word marketh out particular perſons, and not the manner whereby God doth exerciſe his mercy towards them: For he that asked the queſtion; What ſhall we ſay then, is there iniuſtice with God? moued the doubt concerning the hardning and reiection of particular men, & not concerning the manner by which it ſeemed good to God to ſaue men, or to hauehave mercy on them.
IX. And theſe words, I will hauehave mercy on whom I will hauehave mercy, and, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that ſheweth mercy: By which ſaluation and election, is expreſly aſcribed to the good pleaſure of God, Arminius doth darken and obſcure them; for he thus interpreteth them: It is not of him that willeth, that is, righteouſneſſe is not: But in the former verſes, it is not ſpoken of righteouſneſſe, but of election: Alſo thoſe wordes, I will hauehave mercy, on whom I will hauehave mercy, are taken out of Exodus, Chap. 33. v, 19. Where it is ſpoken of ſaluation, not of righteouſneſſe: But grant that it is here ſpoken of righteouſneſſe; will it not hence follow that faith is not of him that willeth, and therefore neither ſaluation? for ſaluation is by righteouſneſſe, and righteouſneſſe is by faith.
X. The obſtinacy and affected ſtupidity of theſe ſectaries, doth maruallouſly bewray it ſelfe in one thing. Paul bringeth in the demander thus ſpeaking, Why doth he yet complaine? for who hath reſiſted his will? By which words it doth manifeſtly appeare, that in this Chapter it is ſpoken of the will of God, which cannot be reſiſted, and that Arminius is willingly blinde, while he affirmeth that it is here ſpoken of the antecedent will of God, which hee thinkes may be reſiſted.
XI. What? That Arminius doth ſecretly accuſe Saint Paul of ſtupid dulneſſe, or of prepoſterous and needeleſſe modeſty: for what neede was there in the buſineſſe of the election and reprobation of ſeuerall perſons, to ſtop the mouth of demanders, by ſaying, O man, what art thou that replieſt againſt God? ſeeing by the doctrine of Arminius, there is at hand an eaſie and ready anſwere: That God elected this man, becauſe he foreſaw he would beleeue; and hee reprobated that man, becauſe he foreſaw he would not beleeue. Did not the Apoſtle ſee theſe things? Or did he ſee them, but did enuy to vsus the cleere ſolution of this knot, that might bring light to this darkeneſſe? The ignorance of Paul ſhall be alwaies better to mee, then the ſharpe vnderſtanding of another.
XII. Maruailous is the wit and ridiculous audacitie of Arnoldus Coruinus, in expounding this chapter. He in his worke againſt Tilenus, Chap 9. doth thus expound the type of Iacob and Eſ…u. Surely (ſaith he) as there the yonger was preferred before the elder, ſo alſo it was figured, that ſaluation ſhould not be by the Law, although it was firſt giuen, but by faith. Surely if this man be beleeued, the Law is the elder brother, and Faith the yonger: Did God then hate the law, before it had done good or euill? I am aſhamed to confute theſe things; for ſeeing God preached the Goſpell to Adam himſelfe, by the yonger brother, the law is rather to be vnderſtood: Perhaps by the elder, he would hauehave thoſe to be vnderſtood, who would be iuſtified by the law; but this is no leſſe difficult to conceiue, how God hated them before they had done eyther good or euill, and how they could be the elder, ſeeing they neuer were ſonnes.
XII. Finally the truth is here ſo euident, that Vorſtius hauing left Arminius, C…llat. aduerſ. Piſcat. ſect. 141doth yeeld to our part: For he thinkes that the ſcope of the Apoſtle in this chapter is to teach, that righteouſneſſe, and eternall ſaluation doth depend, not on the dignity and worth of workes, or any carnall prerogatiue, ſuch as the Iewes boaſted of, but on the meere *foreign.good pleaſure …o God that hath mercy.